Perhaps most important, although people with serious mental illness have
committed a large percentage of high-profile crimes, the mentally ill
represent a very small percentage of the perpetrators of violent crime
overall. Researchers estimate that if mental illness could be eliminated
as a factor in violent crime, the overall rate would be reduced by only
4 percent. That means 96 percent of violent crimes—defined by the FBI
as murders, robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults—are committed by
people without any mental-health problems at all.

And - finally - we see an example of this statistic buttressed by a source; here is The American Prospect:

The stereotype that the mentally ill are very violent is simply incorrect. According to the National Institute for Mental Health,
people with severe mental illness, like schizophrenia, are up to three
times more likely to be violent, but “most people with [severe mental
illness] are not violent and most violent acts are not committed by
people with [severe mental illness.]” On the whole, those with mental
illness are responsible for only 5 percent of violent crimes.

And now we get to the truth. Following the link to the Institute of Medicine ("only 5 percent of violent crimes") and downloading "Improving the Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance-Use Conditions: Quality Chasm Series, 2005", we find this (my emphasis):

The first large-scale epidemiological data on the prevalence and incidence of violence (assaultive behavior) among individuals with M/SU ill- nesses were produced in the early 1980s as a part of the Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) study, which was designed primarily to determine the prevalence of untreated psychiatric illnesses in community populations across the United States.16 A secondary analysis of these data (Swanson, 1994) found that the vast majority of individuals with mental illness who had not qualified for a substance-use or -dependence diagnosis in the past year were not violent.

Even among individuals with major mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia) having no co-occurring substance-use diagnosis, the proportion committing an act of violence was only somewhat higher than that in the population without mental illness. Only about 7 percent of those with a major mental illness (but without a substance-use or dependence diagnosis) had engaged in any assaultive behavior in the preceding year, compared with slightly more than 2 percent of individuals without any major psychiatric diagnosis.

Individuals with less-severe mental illness were at no greater risk of committing an act of violence than those with no mental illness. Because major mental illness is a relatively rare occurrence, individuals with mental illnesses (but without a substance-use or -dependence diagnosis) account for a very small proportion (about 3–5 percent) of the risk of violence in a community.

Substance-use illnesses by themselves and in combination with major mental illnesses were found to be related more strongly to violence. The ECA study found a 1-year violence prevalence rate of 19.7 percent among respondents with a substance-use or -dependence diagnosis without the presence of a major mental illness, and rate of 22 percent among those with dual mental and substance-use or -dependence diagnoses. Individuals with substance-use or -dependence diagnoses alone represented 26–27 percent of the risk of violence in the community, while those with both diagnoses contributed a much smaller share of the risk (5–6 percent) because of their smaller numbers.17

That is heavy going, but my reading is that people with just mental illness account for roughly 3-5 percent of all violent crime; people with a dual diagnosis of mental illness plus substance abuse account for another 5-6 percent of violent crime. Taken together, people with mental illness account for 8-11 percent of violent crime.

Having said that, let's note that the Prof. Swanson of the 1994 paper under discussion is still writing, and says this:

Epidemiological studies in the community have found that the vast
majority of people with serious mental illnesses do not commit violent
acts toward others, and that the vast majority of violent acts are not
attributable to mental illness (Fazel & Grann, 2006; Swanson, 1994).
These studies would suggest that even if we completely eliminated
mental illness as a violence risk factor, the population prevalence of
violent acts towards others would go down by less than 4 percent.

Having paged through his 1994 paper by way of Google Preview, I see that he attributes 3-5 percent of violence in a community to the mentally ill-only, and another 4.8-5.7 percent to the dual diagnosis group(mentally ill plus substance abuse). I don't see any explanation for dropping the dual group from the total but I do see the opposite - he cites an earlier paper in which he argued against counting mentally ill substance abusers as 'false positives' for mental illness. Haven't tracked that down yet.

Mental Illness Policy Org. (founder) claims to provide fair coverage. They have this summary on the topic, which includes a citation ("The Economic Costs of Mental Illness", H. Harwood, A. Ameen, G. Denmead et al) that leads to the Lewin Group report, p. 5-17 (my emphasis):

Research to date strongly indicates that it is the mental disorders involving psychoses, such as schizophrenia, paranoia, and bipolar disorder (termed severe and persistent mental illness in this study), that involve increased risk of violence. The most recent research has found that among the SPMI population the vast majority of violence is among the population that suffers from both SPMI and substance-related disorders.

The SPMI population without substance-related disorders may be responsible for no more than about 3 percent of violent crime, with 3 to five times as much violence accounted for by the dually-diagnosed (SPMI and substance disorders) population. Costs for the dually diagnosed are accounted for in studies of alcohol and drug abuse. The population experiencing other mental illness (not SPMI) present only a modest increase in risk of violence (about twice as great) compared to the population with no current mental illness.

The Mental Illness Policy Org. summarizes that as follows:

Using National Comorbidity Survey data, this report concluded that, for
individuals with severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI), "the SPMI
population without substance-related disorders may be responsible for no
more than about 3 percent of violent crime, with 3 to 5 times as much
violence accounted for by the dually diagnosed (SPMI and substance
disorders) population" (section on crime, p. 1.5). The study also
assumed that the percentages for homicides were the same as for "violent
crime" (section on crime-related costs, p. 6.8). Thus, SPMI individuals
with no substance abuse disorders were said to be responsible for no
more than 3 percent of homicides, but individuals with SPMI and alcohol
or drug abuse were responsible for between 9 and 15 percent of
homicides.

So they would claim that the 'mentally ill only' group accounts for 3 percent of violent crime and the "mentallly ill plus substance abusing" accounts for 9 to 15 percent of crime, for a total of 12-18 percent of violent crime committed by the mentally ill.

Well. One study says 8-11 percent, another days 12-18 percent. Neither is suggesting that Kathleen Sebelius is near the mark with her estimate of 3-5 percent.

Which is disturbing. Progressives such as Obama will want to poo-pooh the mental health problem and focus on limiting the public's access to guns. Are they merely misleading the public, which would be troubling but not unheard of in our political class, or are they unaware of the truth and busily misleading themselves?

I'd hate to see our President start a war on guns based on phony intelligence.

AND AS THE TIDE RECEDES... These surveys were done decades ago and the homicide rate has fallen by roughly half since then. If (IF!) we have made equal progress on all fronts then the mentally ill will be committing a smaller absolute number of crimes and their proportion of the mix will be unchanged.

But that is an evidence-free assumption. Suppose we have made tremendous progress deterring and/or detaining common criminals and that the decline of the crack wars has reduced crime by substance abusers but we have made no headway on dealing with violence by the mentally ill. In that case, the absolute number of violent crimes committed bvy the mentally ill would be roughly unchanged but it would represent twice as high a proportion of total violent crime since the base is now so much lower.

In which case, even the baseline of 3-5 percent ov violent crime committed by mentally ill non-substance abusers is outdated and would need to be doubled to reflect our new, lower crime rates.

Which is it? It's interesting to see how the Reality-Based Community, lovers of science and evidence all, have such confidence in their current answers.

I SEE RIGHT THROUGH THIS STAT:

Amongst the analysis presented by the Mental Illness Policy group is this study of the Indiana prison population:

In the first large study carried out in the United States, it has
been reported that 10 percent of all homicides are committed by
individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychotic
illnesses, most of whom were not being treated. The study was carried
out by Jason Matejkowski, Sara Cullen, and Phyllis Solomon, social
workers in the School of Policy and Practice at the University of
Pennsylvania. It was published in a recent issue of the Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

The authors identified everyone in the Indiana state prison
system who had been convicted of homicide between 1990 and 2002, a total
of 1,397 individuals. The records of a random sample of 723 of these
were examined, of which 518 had sufficient information to ascertain
whether or not they had received a psychiatric diagnosis. Among the 518
individuals convicted of homicide, 53, or 10.2 percent, had been
diagnosed with schizophrenia (n=27), other psychotic disorders not
associated with drug abuse (n=14), or bipolar disorder (n=12). An
additional 42 individuals had been diagnosed with mania or major
depressive disorder, for a total of 95 individuals out of the 518
studied, or 18.3 percent, having a psychiatric diagnosis.

They include this caveat:

It should be noted that the study included only those
individuals who committed homicides and were sentenced to prison; it did
not include individuals with severe psychiatric disorders who were
found to be incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of
inanity [sic] and therefore committed to a psychiatric facility instead of
prison.

A caveat they do not include - Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, won't be standing trial or going to death row. Nor will the Clackamas shooter.

The NY Times surveyed their archives back in 2000 and identified 102 killers in 100 "rampage" attacks going back fifty years. Among their conclusions:

They do not try to get away. In the end, half turn their guns on
themselves or are shot dead by others. They not only want to kill, they
also want to die.

Comments

What it comes down to is the left wants to render the sane and innocent defenseless, while leaving the violent and insane roaming the streets.

Unfair of me? Why isn't the left talking AT ALL about the incredibly high rates of violent crime in some sub-cultures? Why are they focusing on the confiscation of guns from people who have committed no crimes? What about dealing with actual criminals?

Even among individuals with major mental illnesses...the proportion committing an act of violence was only somewhat higher than that in the population without mental illness. Only about 7 percent of those with a major mental illness...had engaged in any assaultive behavior in the preceding year, compared with slightly more than 2 percent of individuals without any major psychiatric diagnosis.

Prog 1: "Conservatives keep trying to make a link between mental illness and violence, and statistically it's just negligible."

Prog 2: "I read that 7 percent of them commit violent crimes, compared to 2 percent of the overall population."

Prog 1: "My Obama! That means conservatives are three and a half times more likely than anyone else to commit violence! That's huge!"

Eyeballing this chart, there were roughly 15 auto fatalities per 950,000,000 miles driven in 2001 vs 26 deaths per 520,000,000 miles driven in 1969; that means for every 1.3M miles driven, there was a 2% chance of a fatality in 2001 and 6.5% chance in 1969.

"Only somewhat higher"? Is that how the Institute of Medicine would describe it?

The NY Times surveyed their archives back in 2000 and identified 102 killers in 100 "rampage" attacks going back fifty years. Among their conclusions:

They do not try to get away...They not only want to kill, they also want to die.

TM,

The report on our Alaskan serial killer (Israel Keyes) who committed suicide a few months back is just out. One of our moron's in the Police Department decided to give the "segregated from other prisoners" inmate a razor, and then neglected to get the razor back from our mass murderer. He was found hung by his bedsheets with razor slits along his wrist.

Why are there always sampling issues, with these things,1) why didn't they review the entire population, 2)how did they make sure that the rest of the sample, the 723 was random, and then the subset of 518.

Russia’s state-owned oil company is poised to play a major role in developing America’s Arctic natural gas under a new agreement to give the company a stake in a huge Alaskan project.

The agreement with Exxon Mobil gives the Russian oil giant Rosneft the option to buy a 25 percent interest in the Point Thomson field...

“Participation in the Point Thomson project will increase Rosneft’s access to the latest gas and condensate field development technologies used in harsh climatic conditions,”

God thing? Bad thing? Beats the hell out of me. But the Federal Coordinator of the project thinks it's a swell idea:

“You’ve got someone who has good reasons to get into this and to get a gas project developed. You want a partner who is eager to get moving,” Persily said. “They’ve got money and they want to spend money.”

Just for interest, Pt Thompson is just at the Sourdough Field in this 2nd map, which shows how close it is to the tiny spot in ANWR that is too dangerous to drill because it'll harm the caribou.

A 9mm pistol was recovered...South Africa has among the highest rates of crime in the world and many residents keep weapons to protect themselves against intruders. But the country also has a careful vetting process before awarding gun licences...

Greetings from Florence, 46 degrees and partly sunny. Spent part of yesterday at one of Rick Ballard's favorite places, San Lorenzo. My daughter lectured on the Medici chapels. Students paid particular attention when she compared Cosimo I (in looks) to Justin Timberlake. Speaking of mental illness, ancient criminals were treated quite rudely, ergo, the martyrdom of Saint Lawrence which is displayed prominently in a painting by our pal Bronzino in the main church. San Lorenzo was roasted on a gridiron thus he is the Patron Saint of cooks and chefs. Next thing you know, the government will try to take our gridirons away from us. Oh dear, shouldn't give them ideas.

Students and non-serious adults such as myself like to giggle about the almost naked man (bottom left) bending over gathering wood for the fire flashing his backside to the horrified ladies behind him.

The afternoon was spent was Santa Maria Novella looking at the frescos in the Tornabouni chapel by Domenico Ghirlandaio and the frescos in the Spanish chapel in which a fellow next me quite spontaneously launched into John Ruskin's remarks about said chapel. Wow, life is so cool.

Last night, went over to the Syracuse campus to listen to a wonderful lecture by Ross King on his new book "Leonardo and the Last Supper." He was the same guy who wrote "Brunelleschi's Dome."

Ah, Lesley, my patron there. I once remarked to a neighbor as I carried off her sawed off limb 'How do I get the biggest stickpile in the neighborhood if I don't collect my neighbor's sticks'?
================

Russians off our Arctic Coast, Soros Petrobrasing huge deep fields, the Chinese nailing down every loose hydrocarbon bond in the world and Obama is tilting with windmills and cars that won't drive to Vegas.
=======

the GOP ad "58 trillion dimes" which I just watched at RCP SUCKS bigtime, imo. It seems to be the same style as the weak ads that Romney ran, which style involved video and soundtrack of Democrats saying a bunch of stupid stuff, then at the end, a one second message from the Republicans. In short we never saw much about the alternative to Obama. Hardly any footage at all featuring on message Republicans, including Romney. Instead we see in Republican ads Obama, Hillary over and over and over again.

The "58 trillion dime ad's big punchline is at the end -- big whoop, a brief flash at the end telling us that Obama has spend over 58 trillion dimes, and that is not even voiced. Blink and you'll miss it, you won't hear it.

And while I'm on the subject, the talking points featuring rhetoric that talks about "trillions" of dollars rhetoric is basically talking in abstractions. The concept of trillions is incomprehensible unless it is compared to something that makes it understandable. For example, how much did the Iraq war cost? How does the 58 trillion dimes that Obama has spent compare to that? Unless the Republican ads do that, they just will not register in any meaningful way.

It bothers me that consultants are being paid large amounts of money to produce useless messaging that will accomplish nothing.

again, in that ad, we hear Obama's voice through 99.9% of the ad, and at the end, and the Republican message tacked on at the end isn't even in VOICE, it is silent. That arrangment is highly symbolic of the state of the Repubican opposition to Obama imo.

Surveying shows that the more persuadable voters hear Obama, the less they like him. Look at the campaign, it was anti-Romney, no big Obama speeeches or plans. So anti-Obama ads focus on Obama-- correctly.

NPR "report" this morning: the public agrees with Obama that we've had enough about cutting the deficit for now. The public thinks it's very important but not as important as fixing the economy and creating jobs. So, they agree with Obama that it's time for the federal government to ease up on all its deficit cutting and turn its attention to spending more on creating jobs.

The listener who hadn't been paying attention for the last six years would be forgiven for inferring that Obama has slashed the deficit in his first term and should now be less of a penny-pincher and start spending some money to create jobs.

ads that attacked Romney verbally attacked him. This ad does no such thing, just a mere little tack-on at the end, and not even out loud. How dismally pathetic. When the Democrats attack, they do so in full voice.

JimR-- I'm confident the muddle doesn't want anything cut-- they also don't want tax increases either, they want gas prices down, they want food prices down, they want wages up and jobs for their kids, they want unicorns and lollipops-- ALL FREE TODAY! No, at this point the muddle have to see the debt bomb go off and feel the PAIN of excessive debt and gov't spending-- they need their 401-k plans wiped out-- again, they need their house value to drop again, they need to see neighbors and family laid off. We need to get like Britain in 1980.Only then, will they agree to cut-- and we'll need another Thatcher/Reagan to lead. Sad, but true.

Chubby, part of the problem is that not just LIVs, but most people just have no concept whatsoever of how big a Trillion is. It is as meaningless as "gazillion" or "light-year". From this inability to grasp the magnitude comes an indifference to all problems so described...such as the annual deficit or the national debt.

((NPR "report" this morning: the public agrees with Obama that we've had enough about cutting the deficit for now. ))

appeal to popularity must be at the top of the list of the logical fallacies that Obama and his followers chronically use

((In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so.")) Wiki

OL: ((... part of the problem is that not just LIVs, but most people just have no concept whatsoever of how big a Trillion is. It is as meaningless as "gazillion" or "light-year". From this inability to grasp the magnitude comes an indifference to all problems so described...such as the annual deficit or the national debt.))

Exactly, exactly, exactly. Good morning, and thank you for stating it so well.

Facts/marketing -- stubborn things. You have to know your market in order to sell. If you don't --you lose. conservatives have lost too many elections because they refuse to accept some hard facts about the voter marketplace. And they've lost those elections even though conservatives are proven right by the objective state of the world. So if conservatives have the better ideas, and the better solutions, and they lose-- time to reassess. Big Data and a negative campaign against Romney's wealth won for JEF -- it would not have won for Romney. Big Data-- plus a positive message about jobs and wages would have done better. The loss was because the muddle were in no mood to vote for a rich guy, and RR's failure to ID persuadable voters contact them through social media and drag them out to vote. Romney couldn't change the fact he was rich, but RR failed to mine over a million getable votes that would have made things very close.

When I was a teenager reading Hot Rod Magazine, I developed my own personal ways of measuring money. A Cadillac was $7,000. A Mustang was $3,000. A VW was $2,000. The fanciest boat on our river was $50,000.

It proved to be an invaluable device as I grew older.

Last week I read a thing about how many tons of gold Putin has purchased in ten years (a lot). From there I went to Wiki to see how much gold was owned by which country and there I found that the US owns a hugh amount of gold...more than any other country by a lot. There being so many zeros involved I sat down with a pencil and converted tons to pounds to ounces, multiplied by the number of tons in Fort Knox, multiplied by $1,500 per ounce and concluded all the gold in Fort Know would cover but a small fraction of our National Debt. (assuming I did not lose any zeros...)

The voter marketplace -- OL-- so if the LIV market doesn't understand Trillions, and the PV of Soc Sec and Medicare obligations, and the macro consequences of QE, how do you sell them? Educate, show alternatives, go negative to reinforce things they do understand-- but ultimately, the LIV muddle need to see the deluge. The Dems were no where until the Iraq Insurgency (and media hype) and the housing collapse and Great Recession. But they were ready for those opportunities because they had their base fired up and they offered lollipops and unicorns to their persuadables. Conservatives have to be ready for their oportunity which is coming sooner than later. Conservatism is a different product than liberalism, you can't sell conservatism through lies. It's a harder sell.

NK, it comes down to the point made by Dr. Carson (and RSE) about how well read citizens were in the past and how illiterate and unread we are now. And even if we could/would/want-to read...what is there to read?

So dumb them down, give them candy, then control is yours.

I was always drawn to the theory about the decline of Rome being related to the increase of pewter dinnerware as the population grew richer and how the lead that leached into the tomato based foods slowly dumbed down the middle classes of the Roman Empire...and then it collapsed.

Or the theory that the France destroyed itself by chopping off the heads of the entire class of smart people, dooming the entire country to lagging the development of other previously "great" counties.

Following the discussion about the "Dime" ad, don't have much to add, except this - "volume." Not merely in loudness, but in number.

Rubio takes a sip of water during speech. In ONE broadcast day:

MSNBC rants about it 155 times
CNN does its part 34 times
FNC mentions it 12 times

I have no idea how many times it showed up on ABC, CBS, NBC in news, morning shows, daytime talk shows, evening comedy shows, etc., but I am sure it was way more times than necessary. Then of course there is the internet and its multitude of sites.

Viewers (of all political stripes) are inundated with the NEGATVIVE propaganda.

We simply do not have near enough "volume" - good message or poor message. Now that is not to excuse poor messaging, at all - not my intent.

We simply must do more on our side to increase our volume somehow. And, no, I don't know how.

The vast majority of Americans with a mental health condition are not violent. In fact, just 3% to 5% of violent crimes are committed by individuals who suffer from a serious mental illness.

If someone else has made this point, I must have missed it; apologies if anyone has. But quite apart from whether the statistic in the second sentence is accurate, the second sentence doesn't follow logically from the first. That X% of violent crimes are committed by mentally ill people tells you exactly zilch about the propensity for violent crime among mentally ill people unless you also know what fraction of the population is mentally ill.

Only about 7 percent of those with a major mental illness (but without a substance-use or dependence diagnosis) had engaged in any assaultive behavior in the preceding year, compared with slightly more than 2 percent of individuals without any major psychiatric diagnosis.

Bgates at 12:13 AM has the key point. Those non-addicts with a major mental illness, are more than three times as likely to commit a violent act. Sebelius' statement shows how a public official intentionally deceives while telling the literal truth. Because those with major psychiatric illnesses are such a small part of the population, of course they would account for a small amount of overall violent crimes (although the percentage increases if one counts suicide as a violent crime).

Well the Roman and post-revolution France marketplaces were different, and what is past is not prologue if circumstances differ. I'm focused on the USA voter marketplace now. Right now, the voter marketplave is driven by the 27 years of prosperity 1982-2008. Decade after decade of more technology, more cars, more consumer products and services, more education, bigger houses, more more more. That prosperity was enabled by demographics, information technology improvements, and the virtuous fiscal and monetary policies put into place by Reagan/Volcker. And the persuadables want to keep getting more, more more... without any cost to themselves. And they want their elderly parents to get FREE healthcare and their kids to get FREE college so they don't have to worry about that themselves. So in 2008 when the Dems were offering more more more by making the RICH pay their FAIR share-- the muddle said fine, let's do it. Reagan/Volcker were born of the failures of LBJ/Nixon/Carter/Burns (ESPECIALLY CARTERand Burns). The failures of JEF/Harry/Nancy are upon us soon, Conservatives need to educate the mudddle now, and then grab the votes when the deluge comes. Educate the muddle about the debt, about europe's collapse, keep talking about QE and high food/gas prices. When the time comes. the LIV will vote their interests.

I was at a bar enjoying cabernet and eating chili nachos last night, CH. The widescreen in front of me was showing an interview of David Stern. I guess that counts as simultaneously being in Heaven and Hell!

Then all of TM's analysis backs up the conclusion of our "all seeing" VP ...

“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.

But this leaves us asking the obvious question, if these new gun laws don't fix the problem, what is their purpose ?

Matt@952 points out the bottomline about Sebelius' statement and liberalism generally. It's form of mental illness-- Sebelius says-- yes the mentally ill commit crimes disproportionately (ya think?) but not all crimes are committed by the mentally ill, so don't single the out the mentally ill for gun control, impose gun control on everyone. Don't try to figure that out, it's madness. Just like the rest of modern liberalism.

Did whatever organ grinder's monkey that was interviewing Stern ask him if he was fining Popovich for resting Duncan, Parker and Ginobili against the Bulls; a game in which the Spurs pounded them with their non-stars?

I was always drawn to the theory about the decline of Rome being related to the increase of pewter dinnerware as the population grew richer and how the lead that leached into the tomato based foods slowly dumbed down the middle classes of the Roman Empire...and then it collapsed.

Minor flaw with that theory: the Romans had no tomatoes. Tomatoes are a New World crop.

(And from what I've read, the lead levels in their skeletons weren't remarkably high. This despite using lead white as makeup and occasionally using ground lead as a sweetener.)

There is definitely a generational cut off in general literacy, critical thinking, and broader cultural literacy and personal intellectual culture. I would place the divide somewhere around those born before 1962 or 63 and those born after. After 1963 there are successive waves of dumbing down at something like 10 year intervals. I noticed, with horror, this first cadre when I was a lecturer at a (quite famous) university in the 1970s. I often spent much of my time just explaining language and basic logic and argumentation to students, even though this was not the subject matter at hand, It has got worse after that. At least back then there was an attempt to actually impart knowledge. Now there most often is not. Now the teachers are as ignorant as their pupils. It is just a Democrat voter factory, and, no, the Science and Engineering depts. are not immune from it either.

The other thing is that even among the educated there is general ignorance and a complete lack of thinking skills. It is amazing talking to academics today. It is all heavily polticized jargon and shibboleths that one can get out of them. They have little awareness at all of how ignorant, weak minded and intellectually dishonest they are. They actually think that this change that has occurred these last 50 years is "progress" rather than decadence and rot.

One wonders how it can ever be corrected.
How do we raise up the crop when it is in the fields>

It is quite shocking, this dumbing down, and it affects a majority, IMO, not a minority of the citizens.

I know common workers from my childhood with only High school educations that had better educations and better personal intellectual cultures than some Ph.Ds i meet today.

From the Anchoress: "When,in a world full of urgent issues,a sip of water becomes the nonstop topic of an entire news cycle,then willful distraction is at work.And,sadly,working."
I agree with her observation.

Thanks for the post, TM. The left's argument is made so that they can "not miss an opportunity" and it's a repugnant Joe-Biden level of doublespeak.

I suppose on an argument level it's like saying 100 people will walk through a dry forest with a box of matches but only one will light a match and burn the forest down so... people with matches don't start forest fires, statistically speaking.

Practically, what this argument covers over (intentionally or ignorantly) is the sad health treatment of those who have done the shootings, caused by those who want to "respect the privacy" of the mentally ill -- or whatever they call what they are supposedly doing for the mentally ill. So, yeah, one person with matches can burn down a whole forest...

What is wanted is administration managed by professionals who have experience in what they administer...

What is really needed are more ballon-popping counter arguments to let the air of all the propaganda floating around.

Plus, no Obamacare Medicaid entrapment for WI. Walker will expand BadgerCare to cover more people than the ACA Medicaid piece would have. Libs forecast apocalypse, Assembly Speaker Vos puts it better Our focus will continue to be reducing people’s reliance on government programs.

Henry-- now I'm angry with you. If connecticut had walker and your legislatute and SCt for a couple of years, it could be a paradise. Instead we have drunken Dan Malloy and the Teacher unions-- so it's Blue State Hell for us.

A common element in all this, is the Big Lie, blood thirsty terrorists, become innocent shepherds, rounded up and turned in for a bounty,
(Levick Grp think) An attempt to liberate a country from a ruthless microfraction of Baathist, becomes an 'occupation for oil' a conscientous public servant, is a vain, ignorant
demagogue,

speaking of the last point, Ericson has to engage in triplethink to endorse Sanford, after the childish tantrum he had the fall
before last.

Let's start with leftwingers and particularly dumbsh-ts like DuDu who suck on the MSM teat as their lifeblood. The most important news item of the day all day ad infinitum for two days is Marco Rubio drinking water, and/or a cop killing cops or their innocent children is touted as a Hero.

How will we ever define real mental illness if the arbiters of assigning the label are - mentally ill?

During the MD senate hearing on our NY style gun control bill, it was pointed out that the law making it criminal to lie on the FBI form for the background check is NOT being enforced by state or federal law enforcement. Why aren't people who fail the check not arrested. It was reported that the shooter in Newtown tried to buy firearm(s) and failed; so why was he rejected and why wasn't he arrested if this is true. If true and he had been arrested, Newtown would not have happened. Why is this being ignored!

henry-- alas I am a lapsed Greek (except for my stubborness-- see RobC). You may get my son though, he's graduating StLou U this year, plays recreational soccer and is a soccer referee who should go on to do pro games, and dare I hope, some day be a national ref (MLS).

--That means 96 percent of violent crimes—defined by the FBI as murders, robberies, rapes, and aggravated assaults—are committed by people without any mental-health problems at all.--

Haven't read the whole thread but every one of the sources and cites used by Tom is a crock of s***.
This can't be overstated; by limiting "serious mental illness" or SPMI to only psychoses and mental disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar they are pulling a very fast one indeed. It's like saying only the NFC can possibly win the Super Bowl because we don't recognize the AFC as a serious persistent football conference; SPFC. (What can't a stupid acronym be applied to?)
By those criteria a psych/sociopath is not mentally ill or has no mental health problems at all.
They are artificially distinguishing between psychoses or mental disorders, which are generally biochemically based and usually somewhat treatable, and personality disorders which are not well understood and are generally not treatable. Both categories are very serious mental illnesses.
Among the PDs are narcissistic PD, or anti social PD, histrionic PD, borderline PD and psychopathy and or sociopathy.
Anti social personality disorder is virtually the definition of career criminals as opposed to someone who is "normal" and has a one time violent episode usually due to overwhelming circumstances. From wiki

"A 2002 literature review of studies on mental disorders in prisoners stated that 47% of male prisoners and 21% of female prisoners had antisocial personality disorder."

As a close observer of both acute schizophrenia and acute personality disorders, the idea that the former is a serious mental illnnes and the latter is not and can be excluded from this discussion is absurd. Anybody who doesn't think PDs are an extremely serious mental illness is a fool or an idiot, possibly both.

Dorner was a liar and a bad guy. Then, he became a homcidal maniac. He may have been suffering from the same delusions all along, but when his delusions became homocidal, in the end civil society had to use violence to stop him and protect the innocent. Dorner created the rules that stopping him meant killing him.

The vast majority of Americans with a mental health condition are not violent. In fact, just 3% to 5% of violent crimes are committed by individuals who suffer from a serious mental illness.

If someone else has made this point, I must have missed it; apologies if anyone has. But quite apart from whether the statistic in the second sentence is accurate, the second sentence doesn't follow logically from the first.

An excellent point.

And one of the linked articles mentions the futility of international comparisons, which break down for similar reasons.

Imagine Society A (Switzerland?) where 1% of the mentally ill are violent but -0-% of the sane population is violent.

In A, the mentally ill are responsible for 100% of the low crime rate.

In Society B (Mexico?) 2% of the mentally ill are violent but 10% of the sane population is violent (You'd have to be crazy *not* to be shooting people preemptively down there...).

I haven't made up a number for the mentally ill percent of total population but let's use 5%. Then:

(a) Mexico does a worse job with its mentally ill than Switzerland, yet...

(b) the proportion of crime committed by the mentally ill in Mexico is trivial.